Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

The why it can't wasn't exactly something I've added to the definition... so for me the fact that Tohya can't manage to make his Battler personality show up it's a fair personality dead even if said dead doesn't depend by his will but it's due to his amnesia. In short, he didn't kill his Battler personality as it was done for Shannon and Kanon, his Battler personality merely died for other reasons.

Except that's not how we were led to believe personality death works, and it isn't how it works for Beatrice. Supposedly, anyway; she's not giving herself amnesia each time.

If you buy personality death, you must as a necessity also buy the entire support structure around it that permits the specific incarnation of Shkanon intended by Ryukishi to exist. If you do buy that, and you must, then should any other example crop up, it has to follow those rules as well. You can't spend a whole bunch of episodes discussing apples, and the properties of apples, and how something is an apple, and then show the reader and orange and say "this is also an apple."

The consequence if you do do this is that I can see your "apple" (Beatrice/Shannon/Kanon trichotomy) and your "orange" (Battler's amnesia) and then point out a "pear" (soandso ceased to be their name and became a character they were acting as after faking their death) or a "grape" (Kinzo conspired to vanish and never be seen again thus becoming legally dead as Ushiromiya Kinzo) and tell you "this is also an apple." How are you going to say it doesn't work that way when you just said an orange is an apple? If you maintain that an apple and only an apple can be classified as an apple, then you can tell me "no, that's a pear and that's a grape, those aren't apples, therefore they don't work" and remain entirely consistent (even if the explanation of what makes something an apple is dumb). However, if you say with a straight face "apples and also some oranges are apples, but it can't apply to anything else because I say it can't," you're cheating.

You're reading too much into this when it can be cut down with a single sentence. 'People = Personalities', that's the way it works in many cases in Umineko. In other words, once a personality 'ceases to exist' it equals death. However, a person may be revived if... how to put it without getting ridiculous... they have a different personality....(?).

Either the death of that personality comes from being murdered by the dominant personality or just "erasing" all of its data from the brain's disk, the personality is "killed". The cause of the death is irrelevant.

Of course, the problems this creates aren't that 'apples can also be oranges so Ryukishi can cheat', but the fact that we can't distinguish them. For example, what if Kinzo's composed and dignified personality is 'Kinzo'and the madman screaming 'Beatoriiicheeeee' is 'Goldsmith'? So Kinzo is already dead at the start of each game does not tell us whether 'Goldsmith' is also dead. The same can be said for 'Rosa' and the 'Black Witch', even 'Maria' and 'MARIA', I believe that's a more serious issue than twisting the rules to match the plot's needs.

Of course, with a bit of common common sense we can see which character is likely to have multiple personalities (Yasu/Tohya), the big problem is, there's so many of them in Umineko that it gets messy, so technically, no, we can't.

Quote:

If Battler is dead! (but actually alive) is true, then either Battler's personality death is 100% analogous to Shkanon or two completely different things can be described as "death," at which point there is no escaping a slippery slope of other perfectly valid conceptions of personality death which would utterly wreck what remains of the narrative because we can just conjure up any dead person we wish if we have a dumb enough explanation that "fits."

Personally, I never tackled this with personality death, I thought it was more like 'It's a miracle so it can happen despite that', which I think gives the story a nicer message.

You're reading too much into this when it can be cut down with a single sentence. 'People = Personalities', that's the way it works in many cases in Umineko. In other words, once a personality 'ceases to exist' it equals death. However, a person may be revived if... how to put it without getting ridiculous... they have a different personality....(?).

Either the death of that personality comes from being murdered by the dominant personality or just "erasing" all of its data from the brain's disk, the personality is "killed". The cause of the death is irrelevant.

Of course, the problems this creates aren't that 'apples can also be oranges so Ryukishi can cheat', but the fact that we can't distinguish them. For example, what if Kinzo's composed and dignified personality is 'Kinzo'and the madman screaming 'Beatoriiicheeeee' is 'Goldsmith'? So Kinzo is already dead at the start of each game does not tell us whether 'Goldsmith' is also dead. The same can be said for 'Rosa' and the 'Black Witch', even 'Maria' and 'MARIA', I believe that's a more serious issue than twisting the rules to match the plot's needs.

Of course, with a bit of common common sense we can see which character is likely to have multiple personalities (Yasu/Tohya), the big problem is, there's so many of them in Umineko that it gets messy, so technically, no, we can't.

This is exactly what Renall was just complaining about. You're not following what he's saying.

Quote:

I'm not saying that Beatrice's case is invalid. I'm saying that is more believable to apply personality death on an amnesiac who really doesn't remember his past self than to apply personality death in some guy playing barbie with herself. Maybe it's different in a lot of things, but at the end, Battler was not acknowledged by Tohya (he was scared of himself) and that effectively crosses with the hole 'A furniture's death entails stop being acknowledged' rule.

Is not perfect and I'm not saying that the rules weren't terribly stretched. What I'm saying is that in the great scheme of things, an amnesiac counting as dead is better play than some actor getting tired of his characters. Not that is more correct or anything, just that is more believable if he was going to use a trick like that.

It doesn't matter if Shkanon is valid or not; it's irrelevant to what Renall's saying. if you define Scenario A as "Personality Death", and Scenario B as "Personality Death", and the two have nothing in common beyond superficial appearances, then "Personality Death" doesn't MEAN ANYTHING, meaning Everything is Personality Death if I decide it is.

If Kinzo is dead, I can just say Kinzo passed on bis name to Yasu along with the headship, and is now Goldsmith, who is still physically alive.

That's what Renall and I are both complaining about. You can justify it however you want, but there's a slippery slope created here that makes all speculation about Umineko absolutely meaningless and futile.

This is exactly what Renall was just complaining about. You're not following what he's saying.

Whoops, yeah, sorry, I see it now, I just got confused somewhere between grapes and apples....

Quote:

That's what Renall and I are both complaining about. You can justify it however you want, but there's a slippery slope created here that makes all speculation about Umineko absolutely meaningless and futile.

You're being way too extreme here. The fact that this 'twisted' logic that is Umineko's solution can apply to other cases as well does not mean it is impossible to get there.

If anything, it creates a logic gap. (And perhaps interesting ideas for Forgeries?)

But then that personality can show up again. If it's revocable, nobody's ever dead.

I know. But in Umineko we see how in Ep 3 Shannon and Kanon were 'resurrected' and in Ep 4 how Sakutaro was (okay, he's not exactly a personality but he was dead). Ep 6 is all about 'resurrecting Beato' also.

So yes, the word 'dead' when applied to personality as a cheaper meaning than when applied to a body (because let's face it, even if there are cases of 'resurrection' after a physical death they can't be compared to the personality resurrection).

I'm displeased by how it work but it seems that's exactly how it was intended to work, at least for certain characters. Battler's death is more... permanent, yet this is probably just due to circumstances. If Battler's memory loss had lasted only few days and then he had recovered completely his memory, his Battler personality would have been dead for a few days only and then... resurrected.

There's to say the whole personality dead notion is introduced not in the real world but in the gameboard which obeys to rules that are different from the real world (in which Knox doesn't work, for example) and that we learn only later so maybe the idea is we aren't supposed to use human logic.

And no, I don't like it but I can't help but think that's how Umineko works.

".........Looks like you really hate me.`@` Even though both of us are Ushiromiya Eva."`@

`"No, that isn't true anymore.`@` And it was you who said it.`@` I am Ushiromiya Eva.`@` And you are the Golden Witch, Beatrice...!!`@` So just disappear!`@` Witches are a delusion, an illusion that only exists in fairy tales...!!`@` Things like you should just disappear!`@` Never appear in front of me again!!"`\

`...And I am no longer Ushiromiya Eva.`@` From now on, I'm the Golden Witch Beatrice.`@` ...So now I can play however I want.`\

`I don't even know you.`@` Why don't you just give up and die?!"`\

Hmm, I was going to say something about this but then I began to think a little deeper...

What's is called when once you start looking for something, you'll see it? It's like you're seeing it because you want to see it or you expect to see it.
It's the reason why you can't really test to see if light is a wave or a particle... you do a test one way and light will act as a particle. You do another type of test and light will act as a wave.

You're being way too extreme here. The fact that this 'twisted' logic that is Umineko's solution can apply to other cases as well does not mean it is impossible to get there.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

We're saying that nothing makes Ryukishi's offered reasoning more valid than KnowNoMore's bullshit. It's a complete guessing game because Ryukishi has no rules that he himself does not contradict in Umineko...meaning the game is broken, and every answer is valid and there are no wrong answers.

You can just go with Ryukishi's explanation, if you don't mind that it's incomplete, poorly explained/demonstrated, and possibly even logically incoherent. Even if it wasn't any of those things, even if his answer was 'perfect', it still doesn't mean anything because Ryukishi invoked Death of the Author multiple times, meaning he willingly gave up his legitimacy as a creator and says 'your opinions are equivalent to mine own'.

Which is fine in of itself, except this is supposed to be a battle between us and him...and there's no answer key. And he has no faith in his own answer and seemingly no respect in the fanbase's.

The game's rules are broken, its themes are undermined by his own apparent cynicism (which I'm willing to give him a pass on due to the death of his best friend), and you leave the game entirely empty-handed. You can make up your own answer, but you could've done that WITHOUT reading Umineko all the way through. There is literally no pay off here, except one of pathos...which, again, he kind of undermines.

And this could've all been avoided if he didn't cheat in his own fucking novel like an amateur.

We're saying that nothing makes Ryukishi's offered reasoning more valid than KnowNoMore's bullshit. It's a complete guessing game because Ryukishi has no rules that he himself does not contradict in Umineko...meaning the game is broken, and every answer is valid and there are no wrong answers.

You can just go with Ryukishi's explanation, if you don't mind that it's incomplete, poorly explained/demonstrated, and possibly even logically incoherent. Even if it wasn't any of those things, even if his answer was 'perfect', it still doesn't mean anything because Ryukishi invoked Death of the Author multiple times, meaning he willingly gave up his legitimacy as a creator and says 'your opinions are equivalent to mine own'.

Which is fine in of itself, except this is supposed to be a battle between us and him...and there's no answer key. And he has no faith in his own answer and seemingly no respect in the fanbase's.

Ryukishi's explanation is the obvious explanation, the only thing that is not obvious are some minor details that don't really need to be explained. Like Genji's past because it doesn't have anything to do with Yasu's story.

The reason you don't follow those explanations is because you're unsatisfied with them. You think those explanations are dumb so you create fanfiction, an alternate theory from the obvious one. Then you fill fake plotholes, that you created yourselves, because they don't fit with how your fanfiction works. You're not even open to the possibility that his solution could be true. And you get offended whenever someone brings up personality death. You create alternate theories and change it to things like "identity death" so it makes sense to you. When that's not what it is.

He didn't get rid of his creative rights and hand them over to you. He's saying "if you don't like my answer, and you think it's dumb, feel free to write your own, because you're going to do it anyway"

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryukishi07

K Maybe because no matter how much Ange pursued the truth, she couldn’t get a hold of it.

R I see. But as long as Ange does not accept it, it will never be enough to become the truth. I had this feeling even back then when I did Higurashi, but most people are just pretending to search after the truth, when in reality they are just expecting the truth they pictured themselves and won’t waver from that. They just want to be told the truth that they are expecting. If this were a zombie flick, most people would expect a result like, „because a combat bacteria made by the military leaked out, people are turning into zombies.“. That is why they are watching that piece while thinking „I wonder when the military will appear“ or „the special unit will go and steal the secret material“. And so these people would not be satisfied with a result that „corpses revived due to irregular electric waves out of space“.

K That is another technique, to create a work meeting those expectations, but Umineko wasn’t done like this, right?!

And he didn't spell it out because he didn't want the internet to be used like an answer key. He wanted people to enjoy reading the story without being spoiled. He wanted people to reason out his answer on their own. But if you don't like it? You can lie to yourselves and believe whatever you want. It's not the truth, but it's what's you believe is true.

The answer still isn't any less obvious. The culprit is Yasu. Touya is Battler. And apparently Ange represents you, the reader.

The reason you don't follow those explanations is because you're unsatisfied with them. You think those explanations are dumb so you create fanfiction, an alternate theory from the obvious one. Then you fill fake plotholes, that you created yourselves, because they don't fit with how your fanfiction works. You're not even open to the possibility that his solution could be true. And you get offended whenever someone brings up personality death. You create alternate theories and change it to things like "identity death" so it makes sense to you. When that's not what it is.

...Okay, no. You can refrain from condescending down to me, thank you very much.

I didn't create the plot holes in Umineko, I merely noticed them. Such as the unaccounted for door in EP3's First Twilight, or the bringing up and unresolving of plot threads, such as Kumasawa's connection to Beatrice, or even just pointing out very wonky details, like the fact that there's no way for the stories we read to correspond to the forgeries Tohya wrote, and that there's no sensible reason to lock up the truth or for the Witch Hunters to stop speculating if they're denied the truth, or keep speculating even if the truth is revealed.

These plot holes exist. You can argue their significance, but you cannot argue their existence. Renall and I deliberately create outlandish counter-examples to demonstrate thought experiments, philosophical and ethical arguments, or to elaborate on points people are not getting, but that's entirely different from writing fanfiction and bitching about it not being validated.

Quote:

He didn't get rid of his creative rights and hand them over to you. He's saying "if you don't like my answer, and you think it's dumb, feel free to write your own, because you're going to do it anyway"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author I was talking about this; this is something Ryukishi brings up in both his novel and in interviews. Please take the time to understand what I'm talking about before you feel it necessary to make blatant assumptions about my character, stances, and beliefs, such as "You refuse to even consider his answer might be true" (which is fucking retarded because I used to be a Ryukishi apologist until around the one-year mark since EP8's release).

If you're not going to address my actual arguments, points, and criticisms, and are instead going to attack my character, credibility, and honesty, then you can get the fuck out and not talk to me anymore, are we clear? I expected better of you, Judoh.

Quote:

And he didn't spell it out because he didn't want the internet to be used like an answer key. He wanted people to enjoy reading the story without being spoiled. He wanted people to reason out his answer on their own.

The answer still isn't any less obvious. The culprit is Yasu. Touya is Battler. And apparently Ange represents you, the reader.

If someone wants spoilers, they're going to get it. That's no reason to cop the fuck out of giving his story a proper ending where things are explained, and it definitely doesn't mean he should badmouth his readers and try and put off ignorance as a moral good.

If Ange represents the readers, he shouldn't be making assumptions of what we want and what will make us happy with the story. That just makes him a smug know-it-all.

I'll also point out that, again, Yasu is probably not the culprit, and even Ryukishi has admitted to that possibility himself. Even if she was, the final scenes bring up extreme doubt about what happened, implying that Yasu never put things into action. Don't tell us to think about what happened and then not reward that effort; that's just lazy.

When you challenge someone to a game, you don't take your ball and go home before the score is tallied.

If you're not going to address my actual arguments, points, and criticisms, and are instead going to attack my character, credibility, and honesty, then you can get the fuck out and not talk to me anymore, are we clear?

Fine. But I'd just like to clarify a couple things before I go. Sorry for being condescending.

Quote:

I didn't create the plot holes in Umineko, I merely noticed them. Such as the unaccounted for door in EP3's First Twilight, or the bringing up and unresolving of plot threads, such as Kumasawa's connection to Beatrice, or even just pointing out very wonky details, like the fact that there's no way for the stories we read to correspond to the forgeries Tohya wrote, and that there's no sensible reason to lock up the truth or for the Witch Hunters to stop speculating if they're denied the truth, or keep speculating even if the truth is revealed.

I was talking about fake plot holes. You've been taking a plot thread that has an established explanation. And then you create new theories and find a ton of new things that don't make sense. There are less plot holes if you don't make up unnecessary things then if you do. A lot of the plot holes discussed here weren't there until you analyzed it over and over.

There's a thought exercise that asks you to prove that Aragorn is wearing pants in Lord of the rings that can be applied here.

Quote:

These plot holes exist. You can argue their significance, but you cannot argue their existence. Renall and I deliberately create outlandish counter-examples to demonstrate thought experiments, philosophical and ethical arguments, or to elaborate on points people are not getting, but that's entirely different from writing fanfiction and bitching about it not being validated.

And those plot holes are insignificant. They're not addressed because they don't have to do with "core" of the story. Except in the case with episode 3, which was addressed outside of the novel.

Quote:

"You refuse to even consider his answer might be true"

I said you're not "open to it" You think he's trying to trick you and that it's someone else. I think The "trick" ending is a metaphor saying that you're not supposed see it that way.

Quote:

address my actual arguments, points, and criticisms

Shannon and Kanon are the only characters that are hinted to be effected by personality death in every episode. Touya is Physically Battler, but at the same time he isn't the same person at all. The old battler doesn't exist anymore. That is how you explain how is personality is "dead".

These characters are given the most weight in the story for having personality death. It doesn't matter if it's possible to create a theory with another character. Because none of those character are actually being used that way in the story. There is no need to prove they're not. They're just not.

If the theory doesn't fit in the gaps of logic that just means it doesn't fit. The explanation you're leading people away from might be dumb, but at least it fits with what the story says, and doesn't go into unnecessary things.

I've read this before. I don't recall what Ryukishi said about it. And could take another look. But I think he's referring to how people invoke it.

Quote:

If someone wants spoilers, they're going to get it. That's no reason to cop the fuck out of giving his story a proper ending where things are explained, and it definitely doesn't mean he should badmouth his readers and try and put off ignorance as a moral good.

He didn't though. He gave a solution. He didn't answer everything. But the things he didn't answer are always things only the culprit would know or things that don't have any relevance to the mystery. You wouldn't normally be able to figure out these things unless you were on Rokkenjima at the time. And I don't think any of us will ever visit Rokkenjima.

I was talking about fake plot holes. You've been taking a plot thread that has an established explanation. And then you create new theories and find a ton of new things that don't make sense. There are less plot holes if you don't make up unnecessary things then if you do. A lot of the plot holes discussed here weren't there until you analyzed it over and over.

What plot thread are you even talking about here? I'm not even sure if you're talking to the right person because I haven't really been talking about many non-canonical things recently.

Quote:

The thought experiment you've been invoking is a slipper slope fallacy

And those plot holes are insignificant. They're not addressed because they don't have to do with "core" of the story. Except in the case with episode 3, which was addressed outside of the novel.

Uh, no. You're invoking the Slippery Slope Fallacy incorrectly, because in cases like Personality Death or Cheating With the Red it's an 100% valid criticism.

The plot holes not being 'core' are irrelevant. They damage the suspension of disbelief in the narrative and undermine a lot of its core precepts. Like Renall put it very well, "Why the hell are miracles so special if they're all over the place?"

Umineko is a story that puts thematics over realism, and I'm cool with that. I don't even mind Shkanon at all, I've made this clear. But in many important ways Ryukishi bungles thematic information as well, which is even more true than the red.

The fact that he doesn't address these in the core isn't an excuse. That's just Ryukishi deciding "Fuck it, it's not important" and hoping no one calls him on it. That's a faux pas in the professional writing world.

You know, those of us who have editors.

Quote:

I said you're not "open to it" You think he's trying to trick you and that it's someone else. I think The "trick" ending is a metaphor saying that you're not supposed see it that way.

If anything, I'm being extremely Pro-Magic here, not Pro-Trick, since I'm having absolute faith in Yasu's characterization as given and finding her personality incompatible with the idea of her being a mass murderer to any degree except perhaps accidental.

Quote:

Shannon and Kanon are the only characters that are hinted to be effected by personality death in every episode. Touya is Physically Battler, but at the same time he isn't the same person at all. The old battler doesn't exist anymore. That is how you explain how is personality is "dead".

...Which is exactly what Renall and I were talking about. Two entirely different things qualify as "Personality Death", and they have no non-superficial things in common. Which means you can make almost any sort of shenanigans into "Personality Death."

The problem with that is not even the Red Truth can put a stop to this by the very nature of it, so there's no way to deny Personality Truth except author fiat with no basis in logic. Ryukishi has to just use "because I say so" without any concrete logic behind it.

Why is this bad? Because Umineko was a novel to understand his universe and the thought processes at work behind himself and the characters. Personality Death and it's implications (and why Ryukishi didn't mean certain implications) can only be understood in RETROSPECT.

He cheated.

Quote:

These characters are given the most weight in the story for having personality death. It doesn't matter if it's possible to create a theory with another character. Because none of those character are actually being used that way in the story. There is no need to prove they're not. They're just not.

Evatrice says hi.

Quote:

If the theory doesn't fit in the gaps of logic that just means it doesn't fit. The explanation you're leading people away from might be dumb, but at least it fits with what the story says, and doesn't go into unnecessary things.

I don't care what people decide to believe in otherwise; that's their personal business. I'm just pointing out that Ryukishi basically cheated and failed in accomplishing his goals with his novel as a consequence.

Quote:

I've read this before. I don't recall what Ryukishi said about it. And could take another look. But I think he's referring to how people invoke it.

He invokes it in an interview when he says anyone else's truth is as valid as his own, and makes the same sort of statements in EP5 and EP8. It's almost one of the significant themes of Chiru, to his credit.

If he really did intend for Death of the Author, I can forgive a lot more; but it also means he has much less authoritative weight about 'what really happened'.

Quote:

He didn't though. He gave a solution.

What is it, then? It's not "Yasu did it", because EP8's ending. It's not "Kyrie did it", Bernkastel herself josses that one and jossing it is one of EP8's turning points.

So who killed everyone, and why, and how? Those are your three questions you have to answer for Umineko to be a suitable mystery. And he did advertise Umineko as a mystery, so it has to be judged by the standards of one, or, again, he's cheating and taking his ball to go home in order to have his cake and eat it too.

Quote:

But the things he didn't answer are always things only the culprit would know or things that don't have any relevance to the mystery. You wouldn't normally be able to figure out these things unless you were on Rokkenjima at the time. And I don't think any of us will ever visit Rokkenjima.

So then why did he say that our goal was to solve for these things? If he didn't intend for us to answer them, he shouldn't of invested so much time on them to the detriment to the actual themes of his novel. And you can't deny that he did so, given that he rewrote entire episodes to keep the speculating fandom on it's toes on the mystery aspect.

It boils down to two things:

1) Either Umineko is meant to be treated as a mystery, in which it is a failure by any literary standard, or

2) Umineko is not really a mystery, or the mystery is not important, then he has suffocated and harmed his true message by putting too much focus on the 'unimportant' mystery.

There is no middle ground, here. It is a binary switch. There's nothing wrong with liking Umineko despite it's flaws; I still love the shit out of it and re-read it every few months. But stop pretending these flaws don't exist.

I don't understand what you're saying here. In particular I don't understand why you framed the quote the way you did.

I'm trying to say that in "A is B therefore A is B" there is absolutely no logical process involved, no computation, no transformation, no extrapolation, nothing. You don't need logic at all to repeat what you already have. This is just disguised as a logical process, but it actually isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

Well duh, that's the point. It's an example of circularity, so if it didn't begin at the same place as it ended it would fail as an example. But besides being circular logic (which qualifies it as fallacious), it's also a valid argument. In logic, "invalid" and "fallacious" do not mean the same thing.

Valid simply means that "given that the premises are true, the conclusion is true". In this sense, circular reasoning is valid. But it's still fallacious because it lacks logically persuasive power.

I disagree. "Invalid" and "fallacious" are antithetic. What you're talking about is "formal validity" which doesn't mean that the whole logic is valid. A logical fallacy can be formally valid, but it is still an invalid logic.

Now since the issue here clearly comes from your assumption that "formally valid" = "valid logic" or "Lacking persuasive power" = "still valid" I want you to find me a single case where it is said that a "logical fallacy" can be defined as a "valid logic" and not "valid in its form but..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wanderer

I wasn't assuming that.

I was borrowing the assumption that "Ikuko wants her own personal random-stranger amnesiac" to demonstrate problems with the Ikuko=random scenario. That particular quote was me emphasizing it's unlikelihood in order to demonstrate that an alternative is more plausible.

You need to argue why Yasu would be more likely to pick an amnesiac from the street than a random stranger based on what we already know about Yasu.

Tohya had both drowned recently (though how the doctor knew this was dubious) AND been hit by a car, the doctor can't know which caused his amnesia because he can't prove temporality of which came first.

Re personality death and Kinzo:
Ryu defined personality death as meaning "never to act again", assuming that applies to all games, then it is valid in my opinions as a form of death ONLY if the characters are viewed as truly separate (and I believe that Ryu intended them to be, whether that is valid or not) and it was proved that personality exists. Kanon was known by Battler to be a thing, and Kinzo was never proved separate to Goldsmith. He was also never shown to have a body which acted after his declared death in any proven fashion.

As for resurrection with magic:

I always assumed they were either lying about it, or someone was just pretending. If Kanon truly is separate from Shannon or Yasu, even the best impersonation is not truly him. I can paint a forgery of a painting on the same canvas, and it can be impossible to distinguish them, but it is still a forgery. This is only a valid move in Umineko because if I declare in red "This painting is destroyed" and then show it to you, you have the ability to know something is up. Besides which she never even had to look like Kanon, because blind people have no resistance to magic (I wonder if you can say in that game she stayed with Jessica until the bomb went off)

As for Evatrice being a valid example of a proven personality:

Yeah she had a lot of development, but by all reliable perspective she never actually existed. She was a fantasy, and therefore is not a valid part of this argument.

As for Aura's comment that Umineko leaves us empty handed:

It may be because I came after the end of the series, so approached solving it quite casually and didn't have months to agonise over it, and I am sure we all love parts of it, I mean we are here, but even from a mystery standpoint it didn't leave us empty handed. Yes it was far from perfect, and had many possible mistakes (plot holes is dubious as besides one retconned door the mysteries are still solvable without the plot being completely derailed) but you could reason the gameboards at least with reasonable accuracy, and that sure was fun. If anything I think you are wrong, in that there was a third option: Ryu wanted to tell a story and have a mystery, but should have been more clear about which parts were and weren't solvable. For me (and this is just opinion) part of the point was while you could solve the boards, and could work out some information for the prime world, that you can't solve the real world.

After all, even the games said that the prime information was just given to help you solve the gameboards.

Sigh, to summarise:
Re personality death and Kinzo:
Ryu defined personality death as meaning "never to act again", assuming that applies to all games, then it is valid in my opinions as a form of death ONLY if the characters are viewed as truly separate (and I believe that Ryu intended them to be, whether that is valid or not) and it was proved that personality exists. Kanon was known by Battler to be a thing, and Kinzo was never proved separate to Goldsmith. He was also never shown to have a body which acted after his declared death in any proven fashion.

Shkanon was never "shown" either. Battler saw Kanon and Battler saw Shannon, but neither he nor the reader ever sees the one becoming the other, and in fact the fantasy scenes in ep1-4 try to show us the opposite.

Also, and I just have to keep pointing this out: You can't define personality death as a personality "never acting again" or never being able to act again, because in literally every instance we have of personality death it's possible for a personality to come back and they do come back. If you can (and do!) come back, your personality isn't really dead. Dead things don't come back to life. Calling it "death" is cheapening death. "Death" is when Shannon kills her body. Shannon personality-dying is just going to sleep. At best, she's dormant and could return under some circumstances, but may not; when she shoots herself in the forehead, she's D-E-A-D. There is a difference, so it's unfair to describe both as the same thing.

And it's doubly unfair to go to lengths to describe (inadequately) how Shannon/Kanon/Beatrice functions and when and how it is personality-alive or personality-dead, and then turn around and say "and also if a person gets amnesia, their original personality is dead too, even if their memories could come back and do." It's the same thing; Tohya may well be a distinct personality from Battler, but Battler isn't dead. Tohya describes his relationship with Battler's memories as if to suggest that Battler is dormant within him, not that Battler is an external force imposing himself upon Tohya. If Battler is dormant, and parts of him can resurface, and merely talking about things only Battler would remember cause Tohya psychological distress (he doesn't remember Rokkenjima on Oct. 5 1986, so it shouldn't harm him in any way), Battler is still there. If he's still there, and still capable of influencing Tohya, then he isn't dead.

He might not be fully alive either, but he isn't dead. We need to use... you know... a word other than dead to describe it. But if we do that, we can't call someone dead in red. And that's ultimately the sole reason Ryukishi did say "dead:" to cheat. He could use other, better words to describe Shkanon's dormancy or Battler's amnesia, but doing so would force him to not say "dead" and give away the game. That doesn't justify misusing a word for dramatic license, and believe you me I give dramatic license a lot of leeway.

Quote:

As for resurrection with magic:

I always assumed they were either lying about it, or someone was just pretending. If Kanon truly is separate from Shannon or Yasu, even the best impersonation is not truly him. I can paint a forgery of a painting on the same canvas, and it can be impossible to distinguish them, but it is still a forgery. This is only a valid move in Umineko because if I declare in red "This painting is destroyed" and then show it to you, you have the ability to know something is up. Besides which she never even had to look like Kanon, because blind people have no resistance to magic (I wonder if you can say in that game she stayed with Jessica until the bomb went off)

Ship of Theseus Paradox. Also...

...How can you distinguish Kanon from an individual who looks, acts, and behaves exactly like Kanon, when Kanon has no individualized self to begin with? What is the difference between "Kanon" and "Beatrice dressed as Kanon using Kanon's voice," particularly when the audience has no clear way of knowing one from the other? Before you go so far as to try to counter "Well Kanon behaves differently from Beatrice-Kanon sometimes," bear in mind that I could always argue that Kanon never exists and Beatrice-Kanon just sometimes behaves differently to avoid suspicion. There's no independently verifiable way to know the difference.

In the Jessica example, it isn't actually possible for Jessica to distinguish between Kanon and not-Kanon. I would argue, then, that in this case there is no distinction. Ergo, Kanon did in fact return, because Kanon is nothing more than an arbitrary social construct whose existence is solely based on perception of his existence. If one believes Kanon is present, Kanon is present. So again, it's wrong to say "Kanon can never come back to life" when in fact he does. If you turn around and say "Well it's somebody else acting exactly like Kanon under the perceptive parameters Jessica has available to her to tell that sort of thing, and the two just happen to be exactly the same but are distinguishable," I'm going to laugh at you, because there's no goddamn difference.

Quote:

As for Evatrice being a valid example of a proven personality:

Yeah she had a lot of development, but by all reliable perspective she never actually existed. She was a fantasy, and therefore is not a valid part of this argument.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Shannon and Kanon are a fantasy that by all reliable perspective never actually existed and I was under the impression they were a rather valid part of this argument.

If you mean "was seen by Battler," you're not really making a point here because absence of evidence to a reliable perspective is not evidence of absence; that is to say, Battler's perspective alone cannot prove Shannon and Kanon are the same person, only that we can't say they're different people. However, there is other evidence which supports that conclusion and we have to supplement the one with the other.

Likewise, we can't prove that a potentially criminal personality of Eva doesn't exist because Battler never saw her (except it's possible he did see that personality at the end when she shoots him, y'know), but we have evidence of all these bodies piling up and the narrative presents Eva with motive and opportunity to commit those crimes. We thus can theorize the existence of a "culprit Eva," even if it's possible that she didn't do it. In that sense, the possibility of an Eva-Beatrice is sufficient to create an alternate personality we could discuss in red, at least theoretically.

You can't really tell with certainty if there are plot holes in a story if you don't know with certainty the plot in its integrity.
However that goes both ways, you can't really tell that there isn't a plot hole or more.

I tend to think there are a few plot holes given my understanding of the story, which of course someone could counter with some kind of theory. But since I don't recognize those theories as true and actually intended by the author, the plot holes still exist in my opinion.

I don't think the story has that many plot holes. It just has plot problems.

A plot hole is "Ryukishi forgot there's another door to the basement in ep3," which was fixed in the anime and manga. Forgetting a plot thread exists is not technically a plot hole, it's just bad writing. It might be a plot hole if something should have happened based on earlier information that just didn't, but that doesn't mean every dangling plot thread causes that degree of problem.

I'm trying to say that in "A is B therefore A is B" there is absolutely no logical process involved, no computation, no transformation, no extrapolation, nothing. You don't need logic at all to repeat what you already have. This is just disguised as a logical process, but it actually isn't.

Here you go. What I am seeing is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy in your assertion that "it's not logic".

You're quotes all suck. Bad. And I don't like the way you like to drop out important context. Read them more carefully so I don't have to do it for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

Now since the issue here clearly comes from your assumption that "formally valid" = "valid logic" or "Lacking persuasive power" = "still valid" I want you to find me a single case where it is said that a "logical fallacy" can be defined as a "valid logic" and not "valid in its form but..."

"Clearly" you say... I have asked you to read this same page again several times, which ironically is the page you first sent to lecture me with, but it does not seem to me that you have. Here's the relevant excerpt.

Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:

"Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand"[3]

He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context - that of an argument - means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You need to argue why Yasu would be more likely to pick an amnesiac from the street than a random stranger based on what we already know about Yasu.

I don't, because I'm not assuming that Yasu and Touya are unrelated persons. That, my friend, is what you are doing. We know she picked up an amnesiac. We don't know why.

My argument goes like this:

Ikuko adopted and hid an amnesiac Battler.

It's generally unlikely for people, that when they run into amnesiacs that are complete strangers, to adopt and hide them.

Therefore, the fact that Ikuko adopted Battler can serve as evidence that she knew who he was (which suggests that Ikuko is Yasu... or Asumu!).